SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 55942

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Kauser Edappagath, J
SUMESH T.R, SHEEBA MARY, ALEXANDER T – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 26626 OF 2024



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: BIMALA BABY, JEFRIN JOSE, JASMINE LIGY, MAGI PAVITHRAN, ROSHAN SHAJI
For the Respondents: K.R.RANJITH, STATE ATTORNEY

The court emphasizes the necessity of timely action on representations under the BUDS Act for addressing fraud in deposit schemes.

Headnote:The court addressed a writ petition invoking Section 7(3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019, concerning a representation alleging fraud by deposit takers promising unrealistic returns. The court directed the competent authority to decide on the representation within three months after receipt of this ruling, allowing the petitioners to submit additional evidence. The judgment concluded with the directive to the first respondent for timely consideration.

Table of Content
1. representation of fraud under buds act. (Para 1)
2. government's action regarding the representation. (Para 2)
3. direction for timely processing of claims. (Para 3)

JUDGMENT

The petitioners preferred Ext.P4 representation before the 1st respondent alleging that one Mr. Mohammed Ali P. E. (CEO of Digitrade Expert) and Mr. Sajeev (Promoter of Digitrade Expert) have extracted several lakhs of rupees from them and similarly situated persons by making them believe that they shall be provided every day profit of 1% to 5% and cheated them without giving the benefit and payment on maturity as promised. The request made in Ext.P4 representation is to attach the properties of deposit takers invoking Section 7 (3) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes (BUDS) Act, 2019 (for short ‘the Act’). The limited prayer in this Writ Petition is to give a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass representation.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.

3. The learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P4 representation has been forwarded to the State Police who is conducting the enquiry on the same and the report is awaited. The learned Government Pleader further submits that as and when the report is received from the State Police, suitable legal action will be initiated under the provisions of the Act. Hence, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P4 representation finally within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners are free to submit the documents before the 1st respondent to substantiate their claims.

Sd/-

DR. KAUSER EDAPPAGATH JUDGE BR APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26626/2024 PETITIONERS’ EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED

15/9/2021 THUS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED

15/9/2021.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT DATED

18/11/2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(CRL), NO. 278 OF 2021.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED

18/05/2024 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT COMPETENT AUTHORITY UNDER BUDS ACT Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT ACKNOWLEDGING THE RECEIPT OF BUDS REPRESENTATION DATED 18/05/2024 RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS: NIL

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top